Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh, vs Mysore Urban Development Authority, on 3 June, 2019
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2019
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL NO.1599 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.42, KESARE,
O.D.BLOCK, N R MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER,
J.L.B.ROAD,
MYSURU-570 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20/04/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.16953/2018 [LB-RES] AND BY ALLOWING THE
WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant made an application for allotment of 20'x30' residential site at Mysore, to the respondent - Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA"), in the year 1991. The appellant herein belongs to scheduled Tribe category and as per the requirement, the appellant deposited Rs.180/- as initial deposit. Considering the application of the appellant, the respondent-MUDA allotted a site bearing No.10924 measuring 20'x30' in Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore. Before communicating the letter of allotment, the respondent-MUDA issued a letter of notice dated 16.10.2000 thereby intimating the fact of allotment and called upon the appellant to produce the caste certificate to justify the claim of the appellant. The appellant submitted the caste certificate on 30.10.2000.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 18 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, provides that persons belonging to Scheduled 3 Caste and Scheduled Tribe whose income is less then Rs.12,000/- are entitled to receive site not exceeding 20'x30' at the rate of 25% of the value of the site. The learned counsel therefore submits that when the respondent-MUDA called upon the appellant to pay sital value at Rs.20,000/-, the provision of Rule 18 was not applied to the appellant and the respondent-MUDA could not have called upon the appellant to pay the entire sital value of Rs.20,000/-. However, in terms of Rule 19, the appellant who was required to deposit the entire sital value within a period of six months from the date of the notice from MUDA, has not deposited the said amount. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that the site that was allotted to him was infact earlier allotted to another person by name Dwarakanath.C on 08.09.1994. It is therefore contended that since the appellant came to know that the site was infact allotted to another person, he made a representation to MUDA requesting to allot him an alternative site or to make sure that the site that was allotted to him has not been allotted to anyone else. 4
3. However, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 15.01.2001. Subsequently, on 30.03.2001, the appellant herein requested the MUDA to permit him to pay the balance sum of Rs.16,820/-. The respondent MUDA issued an endorsement on 11.11.2002 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the remaining balance of Rs.16,820/- with interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of endorsement. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that the appellant was not able to deposit the amount in terms of the endorsement dated 11.11.2002. The appellant made several representations in the year 2003-2004 seeking permission from the respondent- MUDA to deposit the balance amount along with interest. Since the respondent MUDA did not reply to the representations made by the appellant herein, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16953/2018.
4. Since the appellant failed to deposit the balance amount, the respondent-MUDA cancelled the allotment that was made in favour of the appellant 5 herein. The appellant therefore approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order of cancellation made by the respondent-MUDA and a direction to the respondent to allot an alternative site measuring 20'x 30'. By order dated 20.04.2018, the petition was dismissed and therefore the appellant is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA submits that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has not deposited the sital value in terms of Rules and therefore no fault could be found in the order of cancellation passed by the respondent-MUDA. To a pointed query by this Court to the learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA as to whether the provisions of Rule 18 has been followed in the present case, the learned counsel has no answer. It is noticeable that after the appellant herein submitted the caste certificate, the respondent-MUDA has accepted the same and has not passed any order rejecting the claim of the appellant that he belongs to a Schedule Tribe category. In that view of the matter, we find that MUDA 6 has not complied the provisions of Rule 18 and has called upon the appellant to pay the entire sitaul value of Rs.20,000/-.
6. With the above observations, we hold that the action of the respondent-MUDA in not following the provision of Rule 18 and calling upon the appellant to pay the sital value of Rs.20,000/- cannot be sustained. The appellant herein has stated in his memorandum of writ petition that he belongs to the weaker section of the community and was unable to mobilize the entire sital value. Moreover, the site that was allotted in favour of the appellant herein has infact been allotted to some other person. For the very same reason we hold that the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
7. With these observations, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is allowed and the respondent- MUDA is directed to reconsider the representations made by the appellant herein and pass an order in compliance with Rule 18 as stated above 7 and fix the sital value in accordance with Rule 18. It is also incumbent upon the respondent-MUDA to find out whether the site that was allotted in favour of the appellant herein remains vacant to allot or if that is not available, the respondent-MUDA to allot an alternative site to the appellant herein in the very same layout at Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore,. The entire exercise of consideration of the representation and completing of allotment process shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KLY/